Group One’s Problem. Lets give them the name (and why not?) Hilly. They represent the people who came out and voted for their candidate whose name was on the ballot. They want their vote to count, which makes perfect sense. It’s a democracy and they did what democrats are supposed to do.

but then we have Group Two’s Problem. Let’s call this group Obi. They represent the people whose candidate was NOT on the ballot that day, so they either wrote him in or voted for someone else or took a republican ballot in order to make the other side weaker. They didn’t have a chance to make their vote count, so they don’t want the primary to count and this makes perfect sense too.

Next we have Group Three’s Problem. Lets call them Abstainy. They didn’t vote on primary day because they thought their vote wouldn’t count and/or their candidate wasn’t on the ballot and they excised their right to choose by not choosing. They don’t want other people’s choice to count more than their no-choice choice, since they didn’t get their choice. This makes perfect sense also.

Finally we have group four. Lets call them “no opinions”. The N.O.’s didn’t vote on primary day because they really didn’t care or have a preference. Their lack of vote is an ACTUAL lack of vote, not a demonstration of the flawed primary. They don’t think their failure to vote should be counted as anything. And who can blame them? This makes perfect sense.

So what would make, Hilly, Obi, Abby and NO happy? Not the same thing. Hilly and Abby would be happy if their votes and NON votes counted with equal weight. Obi and NO want nobody’s votes to count since theirs can’t be accurately reflected. What is the solution? Is one of these groups more important then the other? Its theoretically possible that everybody’s voice is more important than NO’s, since doing something for a decision should probably matter more than doing nothing. But each group has to be respected in this, or the solution is not really a solution.

Finding the right solution hinges on correct identification of the problem. And the problem here is how to deal with the hurt feelings of a primary fiasco. I think there can only be one solution, which is to let the losers decide. If the contest isn’t actually at stake (and everything I’m reading says its been decided) the winners should let the losers decide, and do what would make Hilly Happy. It isn’t fair to three other groups, but its a solution, and it would allow us to go forward which is far more important than standing here.

Remember when your mom would make one of you cut the piece of cake and the other one choose which they wanted?

That won’t work now, but wasn’t that cool?

Still irks the crap out of me how many union folks likely crossed party lines because they were torqued off by the machinations of the superdelegates who were aligned with particular candidate that delivered this clusterfuck.

If we lose this state, it’s on their heads.

But you do sometimes pardon people for breaking them.

On the other hand, I can’t stomach this coming from the same committee that gave a waiver to NH for breaking the exact same rule.

But in any case, pups, don’t forget to check out Book Salon at FDL when you get a chance. good discussion of “The Trillion Dollar Meltdown”

FunnyDiva

Does FDL need to have its own server (hardware) to be able to live-blog?

I have a family/friends blog on Blogger, and I’m wondering what it takes to be able to do with my large brood.